The City estimates it could save $1 million by passing the costs of landscape waste pickup to users. Under the proposal that heads to the Council next Tuesday night, landscape waste pickup the first two weeks of March and the month of November would still be “free.” But the rest of the year, those wishing to dispose of landscape waste would need to purchase a sticker (“tag”) for each bag of waste they want picked up. Alternatively, they could rent a special landscape waste cart that would include pickup as part of the rental fee.
Category Archives: Peoria Disposal Company
PDC’s proposed recycling component improves, but still falls short
On the council’s agenda for next Tuesday, October 13, is a recommendation from the Public Works Department to accept Peoria Disposal Company’s (PDC) bid of $5 million annually to collect solid waste, lawn waste, and recycling for the next five years. I did some analysis of the plan last month, but now I’d like to revisit the recycling portion.
First, there has been a new development. According to the most recent council communication, alley collection of recycling will be restored and protected:
If a customer currently places their refuse and landscape waste in their alley for collection then recyclables will be collected from the alley. If a customer currently places their refuse and landscape waste at the curb for collection then recyclables will be collected from the curb. Any changes in set out location will need to be approved in writing by the City during this agreement.
That’s great news! It will reverse a unilateral change in “set out location” (as they call it) by Waste Management, and is a big victory for older neighborhoods.
However, I think it might be helpful at this point to ask what the goal is in offering recycling collection. I’m not sure what it is, but I can tell you what it is not: it’s not to incentivize recycling. There are a couple of big disincentives to participating:
- Deposit of $50 for a 96-gallon Toter — Why is Toter rental necessary? It’s not. Consider the fact that you needn’t rent a Toter for refuse, nor do you need to rent a Toter for lawn waste. This means (a) they are capable of accommodating different kinds of waste containers, and (b) they are capable of distinguishing between one kind of waste and another. For the sake of argument, let’s presume that there is some justifiable need for a Toter — why does it need to be supplied by PDC? Why couldn’t a resident use a Toter he or she purchased at the store? Does PDC have Toter manufacture a special, proprietary design for PDC? There doesn’t appear to be any believable reason why a Toter must be rented to participate in recycling. It looks like an arbitrary requirement intended to disincentivize participation.
- Infrequency of collection (only once a month) — Given that your capacity is limited to one 96-gallon Toter for a month, how much recycling will you be able to do? Some, to be sure. But, if you have a large family (I have a family of five, for instance), and you’re serious about recycling (like my wife is), you’ll find that most of the waste coming out of your home is recyclable. In fact, we only have one garbage can of regular refuse each week, but fill up a 64-gallon Toter plus one or two smaller bins every other week. If collection goes to once a month, we’ll easily have more recycling than a 96-gallon Toter can hold. What are we supposed to do? Rent a second Toter, so now we’re up to a $100 fee to participate? Or just throw half our recyclables in the garbage, which has no restrictions? Either way, it’s fair to say there’s a pretty good incentive not to recycle.
Local environmental activist David Pittman recently sent me this information:
Peoria Heights has achieved a 50% participation rate with their curbside bi weekly residential recycling program within 6 months. People usually want to recycle if it is easy and convenient and free. Normal is around 40%. Elgin is nearly 60%. Springfield about 40%.
I doubt we’re going to see participation rates that high under the proposed contract. But his comment got me thinking: Why not bid out the recycling separately? That’s how Peoria Heights does it. G & O Disposal takes care of their refuse while Eagle Enterprises takes care of their recycling.
If we bid it out separately, we might get more bids on the recycling portion than just PDC and Waste Management (WM). Perhaps a company that wouldn’t be able to handle all of Peoria’s waste hauling needs could handle just one portion, if you are now considering to start recycling check cheap skip bin hire Melbourne.
Here’s one thing I don’t want to hear when this is discussed Tuesday night: “We can’t afford any more than this.” It’s inevitable that someone (possibly everyone) will argue that the current proposal should be accepted because (a) it’s the cheapest and (b) it fulfills all the criteria they wanted. While that’s true as far as it goes, it’s worth noting that if PDC had suggested once-a-month pickup of lawn waste, the council likely wouldn’t have approved it due to the inconvenience factor. So it will be interesting to hear how much of a priority the council gives to recycling.
Some might protest that it is a priority, but that we simply can’t afford a robust recycling program right now, given the dire economic crisis we’re facing. I would point out that the dire economic crisis is not stopping the council from raising taxes and handing the proceeds over to a private developer so he can build a downtown hotel. I know I’m starting to sound like a one-string fiddle here, but facts are facts. As long as they continue to pursue and defend this non-essential and risky hotel scheme, I’m not buying any argument that says we “can’t afford” this or that. We can afford it, if it’s a high enough priority.
Public Works to recommend PDC for waste hauling contract
On July 28 the city agreed to send out requests for proposals (RFPs) for a new garbage hauling contract (the current one expires at the end of the year). Only two companies submitted bids: Waste Management (the current hauler) and Peoria Disposal Company (PDC). According to a report released today from the Public Works Department:
In reviewing the responses it is clear PDC provided the best pricing in almost all categories and further discussion in this report will be based on our recommendation to award all service contracts covered by this RFP to the Peoria Disposal Company (PDC). Staff will be recommending the Alternate Proposal from PDC for consideration by City Council at the October 13, 2009 City Council meeting.
PDC’s “alternate proposal” is to provide exactly the same service we have plus citywide recycling collection, all for a $5 million flat rate. Specifically, the proposal would include these services:
- Residential Refuse Collection & Disposal (as currently provided)
- Landscape Waste Collection & Disposal (as currently provided)
- Neighborhood drop boxes, tire disposal and dead animal service (as currently provided)
- Condominium and City Building refuse collection (as currently provided)
- Collection of Recyclables from curbside on a monthly basis for customers wishing to participate. A 95-gallon cart for single stream recyclables collection will be provided for a refundable deposit of $50. There would be no monthly cost for the service.
The good news is that we wouldn’t be losing any services we currently have, and we would finally get recycling collection as part of our base contract. The bad news is that recycling would only be picked up once a month, curbside only, and only from a PDC-provided wheeled cart.
For families that really get into it, recycling can account for 75% or more of their refuse. That’s going to really pile up over a month’s time. Granted, it won’t stink like garbage, but it will take more than a 95 gallon toter to hold it all. This seems less than ideal, which is why I never fail to find some dumpsters for rent near me and dispose responsibly.
There’s no reason recycling pickup couldn’t be accommodated in the alleys, especially since that’s where all the garbage and lawn waste collection is done. By requiring recycling to be curbside only, many in older neighborhoods would be precluded from even participating. Since those participating will have to use PDC-supplied 95-gallon bins, and since many older homes don’t have direct outdoor access from their garages/back yards to the front of their homes, the only way these neighbors could participate is by wheeling their bin down the alley to the side street, down the side street to the intersection, then down their own street, finally placing it in front of their house. Or, alternatively, they could wheel the 95-gallon toter through their house and down their front steps to the street. Kind of ridiculous, wouldn’t you say? There’s a reason why older neighborhoods have alleys. The city should insist that garbage haulers use them.
The PDC-provided wheeled cart is only bad in that it’s exclusive. If someone already owns a dedicated toter for recycling, they will have to plunk down another $50 (refundable though it may be) for this PDC-branded toter. It’s nice to have the toters available for use if you need one, but why force others to take one they don’t need? Are they going to tell us that they have a special, proprietary design to their toters and trucks such that only PDC toters are compatible? If we’re trying to encourage recycling, why do we want to add this entry cost? We’re not requiring everyone to fork over $50 for a toter for regular garbage.
According to the report from Public Works, PDC also provided the cost of providing this same service except that they would pick up recycling and landscape waste on an every-other-week basis. The cost of that solution is $6,186,664.27 ($1,186,664.27 more than the plan outlined above). I don’t understand why this costs so much more. Maybe it will be explained at the council meeting. It seems to me the more expensive plan actually requires fewer collection trips. Think about it:
| $5M Plan | $6.1M Plan | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 landscape waste collections per month | 2 landscape waste collections per month | |||
| + | 1 recycling collection per month | + | 2 recycling collections per month | |
| = | 5 total collections | = | 4 total collections | |
“Ah,” you say, “but landscape waste is only collected from the third Monday in March through the third Friday in December, whereas recycling is collected year-round!” Okay, let’s look at the whole year:
| $5M Plan | $6.1M Plan | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 40 landscape waste collections per year | 20 landscape waste collections per year | |||
| + | 12 recycling collections per year | + | 24 recycling collections per year | |
| = | 52 total collections | = | 44 total collections | |
Where is the added cost? Of course, this is probably a futile exercise, because my guess is most of the council members will not go for lawn waste pickup every other week anyway (the lawn waste bags start getting soggy after a while). But it does raise a fair question about how they came up with the amounts quoted.
Bottom line: The proposed contract is better than what we have now at a reasonable cost. The council should try to work out the flaws mentioned above while still keeping costs low.
Peoria County Board vindicated in PDC expansion denial
From the Journal Star’s breaking news feed:
With no discussion, the Illinois Pollution Control Board voted 4-0 today to reject an appeal filed by Peoria Disposal Co.
Congratulations to the County Board and all the activists who worked to oppose this landfill expansion. Here’s a press release from Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste: Continue reading Peoria County Board vindicated in PDC expansion denial
Secret negotiations with PDC?
Local resident Judy Stalling has been a vocal opponent of Peoria Disposal Company’s (PDC) application to increase the size of their hazardous waste landfill. This morning, she sent this message which found its way to area neighborhood associations:
Re: PDC’s Hazardous Landfill Negotiations
Staff from the Peoria County Board has been negotiating secretly with a few members of Peoria Families, Sierra Club and PDC to reach an agreement on PDC’s operation of its hazardous materials landfill.
Neither the content nor the reason for these negotiations has been made clear to the public.
Please call Bill Prather, Peoria County Board chairman, and request that a PUBLIC HEARING be held on any such agreement BEFORE the Board is asked to vote on it.
Bill Prather 274-2907 H 579-2206 W
Judy
This is a weird message, don’t you think? I don’t believe there’s any law being broken here, is there? I mean, “staff from the Peoria County Board” are not subject to the Open Meetings Act, are they? And the other parties are all private, so they have no requirement to meet openly either, right? And whatever is negotiated will have to come before the Peoria County Board, which means it will be published ahead of time on the agenda and discussed in an open meeting, right? So, why do we need another public hearing? Besides, the anti-landfill people are represented, so I’m not sure what the worry is.
Left unexplained is how Stalling knows these meetings are going on and why she objects to them.
Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste announce meeting
From a press release I received today:
Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste
(309) 339-9733
www.notoxicwaste.orgJanuary 22, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE.
Please announce the following:
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY HOLDING PUBLIC MEETING ON EXPANDING LANDFILL WITHOUT COUNTY APPROVAL — FRIDAY, JANUARY 26 AT 9AM!
PEORIA FAMILIES AGAINST TOXIC WASTE AND HEART OF ILLINOIS SIERRA CLUB ENCOURAGE EVERYONE CONCERNED TO ATTEND!
Peoria Disposal Company (PDC), owner/operator of the hazardous waste landfill located at 4349 Southport Rd in Peoria, just west of Pleasant Valley Middle School and the Sterling Avenue business corridor, is holding a legally required public meeting on Friday, January 26 at 9am, as part of their application to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) for a Class 3 permit modification. PDC is claiming they are a manufacturer of the waste, because they mix inert substances with some of the hazardous waste, in an attempt to circumvent state law requiring local governmental approval of an expansion.
Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste (PFATW) and Heart of Illinois Sierra Club (HOISC) will be in attendance. We strongly encourage all citizens of Peoria County to attend as well. Come and learn about PDC’s maneuver to bypass the County Board’s decisive “no” vote. Public questions about the PDC Class 3 permit modification will be allowed at the meeting:
Friday, January 26, 2007
9:00am
PDC Laboratory
2231 W. Altorfer Drive, PeoriaWe encourage concerned citizens to go to www.notoxicwaste.org for more information and directions.
Additional information:
PDC is asking the Illinois EPA to reclassify their hazardous waste landfill as a generator of waste rather than a regional pollution control facility, so they won’t need county approval to dump millions more tons of hazardous waste over our water source and upwind of Peoria. In fact, the EXACT same engineering drawings and plans put before the County in the expansion application have been submitted to IEPA for this Permit modification request. Peoria Disposal Company spent over $1,000,000 trying to convince the Peoria County Board to allow them to expand their hazardous waste site, but the County voted no based on the evidence. Now PDC is trying to claim they don’t need the county’s approval anyway. “It’s our backup plan,” said PDC attorney Brian Meginnes in a recent Peoria Journal Star article.Other issues:
PFATW and HOISC are watchful of the four fronts PDC is pursuing with their hazardous waste landfill, including the appeal to the Illinois Pollution Control Board regarding the County Board’s denial of the PDC expansion request, and PDC’s recent application to the US EPA to take in increased levels of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), despite having said during the 2006 hearings that this was not their intention. PCBs are known carcinogens banned from production by the US Congress in 1977.PDC has also applied to the Illinois EPA for a renewal of their operating permit, a renewal that includes two new 32,000 gallon steel silos and a new solids building with 9 underground holding tanks of 20,000 gallons each for their waste processing.
See our website, www.notoxicwaste.org, for our “Four Fronts” chart with more information on PDC’s latest activities.
Background on our group
PFATW is an ever-growing group of mainstream citizens who live and work in Peoria County and are concerned about the health and safety of our families. Like many other local grassroots organizations, the medical community and thousands of Peoria County citizens who voiced their strong concerns during the 2006 expansion hearings, we oppose Peoria Disposal Company’s (PDC) proposed expansion of its hazardous waste landfill so close to our homes as well as the new threat of toxic PCBs. We are compelled and unified by a common sense concern about the health and safety of our children. We seek to do what we see as our duty as concerned residents: to inform our neighbors and impact the public process.
We believe the long term negative affects of continued hazardous waste dumping right on the edge of our city are unknown and not worth the risk to our families’ health and investment in our good communities. Additionally, safety claims are unproven. Long-term benefits to our community are very low to non-existent. For these reasons we oppose the expansion and acceptance of PCBs.
We are citizens, taxpayers, parents and grandparents and we seek to protect our health and the health of our children.
Please go to www.notoxicwaste.org for more information.
Waiting for my PDC subpoena
I see Peoria Disposal Company has sent subpoenas to opponents of their landfill expansion plans. That’s nice. I wonder if I’ll get one, since I, too, opposed the expansion. I wonder if all the letter-writers to the Journal Star’s forum who opposed the expansion will also have to testify.
It’s a shame that PDC, which has had such a good reputation in town, is now poised to throw that away in their effort to force more out-of-state toxic waste down our throats. Guy Brenkman sued the county and won his “right” to put his Fantasyland strip club on Farmington Road (another form of toxic waste), and now he’s universally reviled. I guess they care more about making money than having a good reputation. Too bad they couldn’t just graciously accept the County Board’s decision, like a good neighbor.
A taxing weekend
Yesterday I got my property tax bill.
Looking it over, I see that over half my taxes go to Peoria Public School District 150. They’re going to have another forum on the future plans for Glen Oak and White schools, this time just for parents of kids who attend those schools. Superintendent Ken Hinton said, “It’s important to me to hear the voice of the parents.” Okay, I’ll take him at his word, but he’d be a whole lot more convincing if he had listened to their voice before deciding the site of a new school.
I have the same concerns about the format as other people, so I won’t repeat that here. But I would like to make another point: I think it’s important to listen to the parents of kids who attend there, but this decision doesn’t just affect them. Alterations to Glen Oak Park affects all of Peoria. Replacing the Glen Oak School site with a park, public housing, or a vacant building affects all of the East Bluff. Let’s just suppose, for the sake of argument, that the parents of kids at Glen Oak and White right now are indifferent to the location of a new school. That should be taken into consideration, but shouldn’t trump overall neighborhood and city concerns.
Also on my bill, I see I’m paying a good amount to the “Pleasure Driveway PKD,” aka the Peoria Park District. The park board was just slapped with a lawsuit this weekend by neighborhood activists Karrie Alms and Sara Partridge. According to the Journal Star, the suit “alleges closed meetings held by the board on March 8 and 22 violated the state’s Open Meetings Act by discussing plans to replace Glen Oak School when that wasn’t appropriate.” If the court finds that the board met illegally, and if the decision to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with District 150 was made in one of those meetings, one possible remedy would be to nullify the agreement that was made in secret.
I’m glad somebody cares enough to act on this. People complain about back-room deals and shady politics, but more often than not nobody does anything about it. Here are a couple of people who are willing to hold the Park Board accountable for their actions. Kudos to Karrie and Sara!
Let’s see, what else is on my tax bill? There’s Illinois Central College and the Peoria Library. Don’t have much to say about those except that I think the library here in Peoria is under-utilized. There’s a wealth of information and expertise down there — I’ve learned more about Peoria from the library than one could ever learn online.
The Greater Peoria Mass Transit District, aka CityLink, makes an appearance on my bill. They do a pretty good job of moving people around the city — a tough job when the city is as spread out as it is. On the Peoria Rails Yahoo group, several people have been throwing around the idea of using the Kellar Branch for a light passenger rail system instead of a walking/biking trail:
The expansion of Peoria population into the far northwest part of the city, the growth of shopping in that area, and greatly increased fuel costs might make light rail service feasible. The Kellar branch could up upgraded and extended over Rt 6 to a parking and depot area behind or near the Grand Prairie. Interconnecting bus service there, downtown, and perhaps at a stop or two along the way would make public transportation quicker and more user friendly. The light rail service could terminate at the old Rock Island Depot and the light rail unit could be run in the push/pull – Chicago METRA style. A shuttle bus could take passengers to and from the CITYLINK terminal on Adams St.
Not a bad idea, especially given the cost of gas these days. However, there are two things not mentioned that would have to happen for it to be successful: (1) the speed limit for this light rail system would have to be faster than the 10 mph city code dictates for trains, and (2) part of the upgrade of the Kellar Branch would have to be better signals at grade crossings and fences along the tracks where the tracks pass through neighborhoods.
CityLink isn’t the only transportation entity on my tax bill. There’s also the Greater Peoria Regional Airport Authority. They have a new skipper (Ken Spirito from Gulfport, Mississippi), and part of his mission is to “redevelop and redo this terminal building. […] I want it to be a ‘wow’ impression. I want to ‘wow’ them,” according to the Journal Star‘s May 1 article. At least one person doesn’t like that idea. Polly Peoria, usually an advocate of tearing down old buildings, likes this one, so it can stay. I haven’t flown since before 9/11/01, so I honestly have no idea what kind of condition Peoria’s airport is in. If remodeling can bring in more business though, I say go for it. It’s not like that terminal was built to be a hallmark civic building.
What’s left? Let’s see, Peoria County, which recently voted down an expansion to the hazardous waste landfill. Now there’s a public board that listened to the public. District 150 and the Park Board could learn a few things from them. I’ve already blogged about this issue at length, so I’ll move on.
Finally, there’s the City of Peoria and Peoria Township. Why we need both I don’t quite understand, and yes, I have read the Journal Star’s special series on this issue. It’s an interesting read, but given what services the township now provides, it seems like they could just as easily provide it as part of city services and eliminate redundant government bodies.
As usual, my wife and I will pick a day to go down to the courthouse, eat at the pushcarts, listen to the Arts in Education bands play, enjoy the beautiful weather (hopefully), and pay our property taxes. Doing it that way lessens the pain of all the money we’re paying.
Whither goest the civic-minded?
Not too long ago, I was doing some research on the Richwoods Township annexation back in 1964. During the time leading up to the referendum, there was a lot of heated rhetoric, and when the vote came around, the citizens were split almost right down the middle. The annexation passed by a mere 336 votes.
Yet, when it was all over, I was struck by a comment made by one of the opposition leaders. He expressed his disappointment over the loss, but then he added that he was a civic-minded man and wanted to see Peoria succeed, so he would get behind the annexation and do what he could to make sure the transition went smoothly. He wanted what was best for Peoria. This man was a true statesman.
Compare that response to the hazardous waste landfill proponents after the county board denied PDC’s application for expansion:
- Hazardous-waste enthusiast Bill Dennis said on his blog, “The NIMBY […] crowd think they won last night. I’ll let them savor their ‘victory.’ After the lawsuits start and the bills rack up […] and the unemployment claims are filed, I’ll try not to gloat about being right.”
- County board member and expansion supporter Merle Widmer wrote similarly, “This highly Christian community denies they are of the NIMBY crowd. Good Christians are compassionate and willingly accept other people’s problems, they say. We’ll see. The businesses leaders of this community see why the closure of this disposal site could prevent waste creating companies from coming here like, say medical laboratories….”
- A pro-expansion commenter on Bill’s blog added, “The Peoria County Board reacted in cowardice because they are politicians and their chief responsibility is to ensure that they get re-elected. Had more of them looked at the facts, and had the virility to make the right decision even though the vocal minority of the public wouldn’t like it, the vote would have been to approve by a good margin.”
You get the feeling from reading some of the blogs and comments that these proponents actually wish the county would lose an appeal, or PDC would lay off a bunch of workers, or some other ill-will, just so they can spitefully say “I told you so.” Where are the statesmen today who lose gracefully and wish the best for the community?
The only comment I could find that had a hint of graciousness was, in all places, the Journal Star’s editorial: “Though we endorsed the landfill’s expansion, with conditions, for the community’s sake we hope there is no reversal.”
If proponents are correct that a reversal would mean PDC could expand the landfill without any of the conditions or safeguards the county requested, including their offer not to add to the oldest part of the landfill, I would hope proponents wouldn’t really be wishing the worst on Peoria just because the vote didn’t go their way.
Landfill expansion soundly defeated; time to move on
Last night, the Peoria County Board voted 12-6 to deny Peoria Disposal Company’s (PDC) hazardous waste landfill expansion application. Opponents cheered, proponents were disappointed (if not a little bitter), PDC is planning to appeal to the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
But I think regardless of how the appeals come out, it’s time we all got on the same team and started seriously researching alternatives to burying hazardous waste. It can be done. I found this interesting piece of information (PDF) on Caterpillar’s website. On page 11 of this document, it says:
We can set the example for others to follow. In 1997, an employee team at our Sumter, South Carolina, facility set out to develop a process that would, for the first time ever, recycle 100 percent of hazardous waste and totally eliminate landfill. They succeeded. It cost half-a-million dollars to do it, but the new process also saves Caterpillar more than $400,000 every year. It was the right thing for the environment. It saved Caterpillar money as well.
The first thing that struck me was the fact that this happened in 1997 — that’s almost ten years ago. Has this process been refined/improved? Marketed? Is this something that PDC and other hazardous waste landfills could employ? Or that Keystone could employ?
The second thing that struck me is that it cost “half-a-million dollars to do it.” Converting that to 2006 dollars, that’s still only $631,000 (approx.). It doesn’t sound like it takes a tremendous amount of money to find these solutions, does it? Compare that to the million dollars PDC spent just on their expansion application — let alone how much it’s going to cost to appeal the board’s decision.
I don’t think one has to be a rabid environmentalist to see the value of recycling this waste versus encasing it in concrete and burying it in the ground. Even if you’re a proponent of the landfill expansion, wouldn’t you still rather live in a world where there’s no need for such landfills?